Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Next war will be on guns though, it's already starting. Politicians will go broke if they can't justify their presence, by frightening us all into thinking that the only thing that stands between us and death is them...

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

We have lost the will to fight this war, just like we've lost the will to fight the Taliban. What happens now is the problem well grow much much worse (like it did in Europe) we will be forced to AGAIN deal with it. "WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND"

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The War on Drugs is NOT lost. It's like the War in Iraq...which nobody would say we lost: we are withdrawing from direct hostilities, yet UNLESS and UNTIL the residents pick themselves up and decide to live better, they will flounder. So it is with the War on Drugs. There is hope, it just depends on what the citizens do, themselves. We would no longer through the gates open to all manner of terrorists and Taliban and warlords in Iraq; so it will be with the War on Drugs. For those slow on the pick-up: yes, we can and should continue to vigorously fight the most corrupting of drugs (meth, heroin, oxycontin..all requiring different tactics) but we will no longer 'police' marijuana use and distribution. This is a SENSIBLE approach, and speaks not to the (SILLY) question of whether or not the War is lost. Will the War Against Terrorism ever be over?? Is it lost, too ... just because it continues?! Silly question.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

While there has been a good effort on the part of law enforcement; given the legal constraints, the real issue is that as a country we lack the will to really fight a drug war. We lack the will to encourage the end users to stop using illegal drugs. When Jim Carter and Bill Clinton and other leaders indicate that illegal drug use is alright and we continue to exempt recipients of government funds from mandatory drug testing, we will continue to lose this "War". There is no requirement for those on unemployment, welfare, food stamps, college "Professors” and others, to submit to mandatory drug testing. To a large extent we have tax payers funding the purchase of illegal drugs and we do not have elected leaders with the courage to change this situation.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Actually, Dwayne, you give too much credit to politicians. Perhaps you are too young to realize that the war on drugs was lost before Bill Clinton was even born. The film Reefer Madness was made in 1936 to warn children of the dangers of marijuana. Marijuana use has grown exponentially since that time (and was growing even before then). Nixon started the official federal government's"War on Drugs" back in 1972 after passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. It was already too late by then. When the federal government in the 1980s under Reagan accelerated the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, it was inevitable that the numbers of illegal drug users (and homeless) would skyrocket. Putting up a fence to prevent drugs from getting here from Mexico or executing drug dealers (as some countries currently do) hasn't worked. Spending millions on the Columbia military, Mexican military, and the Bolivian military hasn't worked (and will never work). The fact that some politician smoked marijuana in the 60s or 70s doesn't influence many kids (who don't even know who Bill Clinton is (or Jimmy Who?) and don't care even if they did). Drug addicts can't be "encouraged" to give up drugs. Ha!! These are people who have in many cases, lost their jobs, lost their families, lost their homes, and are living on the street being abused and abusing others to get just another hit. No president can "encourage" people to do something that their parents, relatives, teachers, religious leaders, employers, and friends couldn't "encourage" or force them to do. Even putting them in jail doesn't "encourage" them to give up drugs. It's always nice to blame some individual but the fact remains, that given our society's orientation towards the drug problem, the US (and all the other countries of the world that are fighting this problem through law enforcement means and interdiction, even the ones that execute drug dealers) couldn't win this war.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Never had a chance. Until demand is reduced there will always be people willing to provide supply. Since we have never attempted to reduce demand, there is no measure we can take on the supply side that would result in the disappearance of illegal drugs. For people involved in the drug trade, the apparent rewards have always seemed to outweigh the costs (i.e., death, prison, etc.) so no amount of increasing the cost can overcome the potential (perceived) reward.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

All intoxicants should be handled the same. If you are on drugs or smoking pot to a set limit like .08 on alcohol, prudent citizens will not smoke, drink, do drugs and drive. At the bottom of this debate is the bigger issue of why do we need it or do it at all... is it to mask our stress or escape from reality? At that point it becomes a medical and psycological issue and funding should be routed in that direction rather than on law enforcment that ends up clogging our courts, filling our jails and rewarding the drug lords.